Aim Plant functional groups are widely used in community ecology and earth system modelling to describe trait variation within and across plant communities. However, this approach rests on the assumption that functional groups explain a large proportion of trait variation among species. We test whether four commonly used plant functional groups represent variation in six ecologically important plant traits. Location Tundra biome. Time period Data collected between 1964 and 2016. Major taxa studied 295 tundra vascular plant species. Methods We compiled a database of six plant traits (plant height, leaf area, specific leaf area, leaf dry matter content, leaf nitrogen, seed mass) for tundra species. We examined the variation in species-level trait expression explained by four traditional functional groups (evergreen shrubs, deciduous shrubs, graminoids, forbs), and whether variation explained was dependent upon the traits included in analysis. We further compared the explanatory power and species composition of functional groups to alternative classifications generated using post hoc clustering of species-level traits. Results Traditional functional groups explained significant differences in trait expression, particularly amongst traits associated with resource economics, which were consistent across sites and at the biome scale. However, functional groups explained 19% of overall trait variation and poorly represented differences in traits associated with plant size. Post hoc classification of species did not correspond well with traditional functional groups, and explained twice as much variation in species-level trait expression. Main conclusions Traditional functional groups only coarsely represent variation in well-measured traits within tundra plant communities, and better explain resource economic traits than size-related traits. We recommend caution when using functional group approaches to predict tundra vegetation change, or ecosystem functions relating to plant size, such as albedo or carbon storage. We argue that alternative classifications or direct use of specific plant traits could provide new insights for ecological prediction and modelling.
1.Univ Edinburgh, Sch GeoSci, Crew Bldg, Edinburgh EH9 3FF, Midlothian, Scotland 2.Aarhus Univ, Dept Biosci, Ecoinformat & Biodivers, Aarhus, Denmark 3.Senckenberg Gesell Naturforschung, Biodivers & Climate Res Ctr SBiK F, Frankfurt, Germany 4.Univ Colorado, Inst Arctic & Alpine Res, Boulder, CO 80309 USA 5.Lund Univ, Dept Phys Geog & Ecosyst Sci, Lund, Sweden 6.Vrije Univ, Dept Ecol Sci, Amsterdam, Netherlands 7.Univ Lapland, Arct Ctr, Rovaniemi, Finland 8.Grand Valley State Univ, Biol Dept, Allendale, MI 49401 USA 9.WSL Inst Snow & Avalanche Res SLF, Davos, Switzerland 10.Univ Zurich, Dept Evolutionary Biol & Environm Studies, Zurich, Switzerland 11.Greifswald Univ, Inst Bot & Landscape Ecol, Greifswald, Germany 12.Univ New South Wales, Sch Biol Earth & Environm Sci, Sydney, NSW, Australia 13.Max Planck Inst Biogeochem, Jena, Germany 14.German Ctr Integrat Biodivers Res iDiv, Halle Jena Leipzig, Germany 15.Northen Arizona Univ, Sch Informat Comp & Cyber Syst, Flagstaff, AZ 86011 USA 16.Bigelow Lab Ocean Sci, Boothbay, ME USA 17.Qatar Univ, Dept Biol & Environm Sci, Doha, Qatar 18.Univ Barcelona, Dept Evolutionary Biol Ecol & Environm Sci, Barcelona, Spain 19.Univ Barcelona, Biodivers Res Inst, Barcelona, Spain 20.Univ Gothenburg, Dept Earth Sci, Gothenburg, Sweden 21.Gothenburg Global Biodivers Ctr, Gothenburg, Sweden 22.Adam Mickiewicz Univ, Inst Geoecol & Geoinformat, Poznan, Poland 23.Univ Alaska Anchorage, Dept Biol Sci, Anchorage, AK USA 24.Wageningen Univ & Res, Forest Ecol & Forest Management, Wageningen, Netherlands 25.Univ Parma, Dept Chem Life Sci & Environm Sustainabil, Parma, Italy 26.Alaska Dept Fish & Game, Juneau, AK USA 27.Mem Univ, Dept Biol, St John, NF, Canada 28.UiT Arct Univ Norway, Dept Arct & Marine Biol, Tromso, Norway 29.UFZ, Helmholtz Ctr Environm Res, Dept Physiol Div, Leipzig, Germany 30.Univ Oulu, Dept Ecol & Genet, Oulu, Finland 31.Univ British Columbia, Dept Geog, Vancouver, BC, Canada 32.UAB UB, CSIC, CREAF, Global Ecol Unit, Bellaterra, Spain 33.Queens Univ, Dept Biol, Kingston, ON, Canada 34.Swedish Agr Univ SLU, Biol Dept, Uppsala, Sweden 35.Wageningen Univ & Res, Plant Ecol & Nat Conservat Grp, Wageningen, Netherlands 36.British Columbia Publ Serv, Victoria, BC, Canada 37.Univ Vienna, Dept Bot & Biodivers Res, Vienna, Austria 38.Oak Ridge Natl Lab, Climate Change Sci Inst, Oak Ridge, TN USA 39.Oak Ridge Natl Lab, Environm Sci Div, Oak Ridge, TN USA 40.Univ Bergen, Dept Biol, Bergen, Norway 41.Univ Saskatchewan, Dept Biol, Saskatoon, SK, Canada 42.Umea Univ, Dept Ecol & Environm Sci, Umea, Sweden 43.VUB, Dept Biol, Brussels, Belgium 44.Univ Helsinki, Fac Biol & Environm Sci, Helsinki, Finland 45.Univ Quebec Trois Rivieres, Dept Sci Environm, Trois Rivieres, PQ, Canada 46.Univ Quebec Trois Rivieres, Ctr Etudes Nord, Trois Rivieres, PQ, Canada 47.Eawag Swiss Fed Inst Aquat Sci & Technol, Dubendorf, Switzerland 48.Univ Copenhagen, Dept Biol, Copenhagen, Denmark 49.Univ Copenhagen, Ctr Permafrost CENPERM, Copenhagen, Denmark 50.Res Inst Nat & Forest INBO, Brussels, Belgium 51.Florida Int Univ, Dept Biol Sci, Miami, FL 33199 USA 52.Lomonosov Moscow State Univ, Dept Geobot, Moscow, Russia 53.Leiden Univ, CML, Dept Inst Environm Sci, Environm Biol, Leiden, Netherlands 54.Univ Calif Riverside, Dept Biol, Riverside, CA 92521 USA 55.Norwegian Univ Sci & Technol, NTNU Univ Museum, Trondheim, Norway 56.Univ Alaska, Water & Environm Res Ctr, Fairbanks, AK 99701 USA 57.Univ Utrecht, Copernicus Inst Sustainable Dev, Environm Sci, Utrecht, Netherlands 58.Univ Waterloo, Sch Environm Resources & Sustainabil, Waterloo, ON, Canada 59.Australian Natl Univ, Res Sch Biol, Acton, ACT, Australia 60.Deakin Univ, Sch Life & Environm Sci, Ctr Integrat Ecol, Burwood, Vic, Australia 61.Univ Bonn, Dept Geog, Bonn, Germany 62.Univ Innsbruck, Dept Ecol, Innsbruck, Austria 63.Univ Oxford, Sch Geog & Environm, Environm Change Inst, Oxford, England 64.Rocky Mt Biol Labs, Crested Butte, CO USA 65.Univ Camerino, Sch Biosci & Vet Med, Plant Divers & Ecosyst Management Unit, Camerino, Italy 66.Univ Insubria, DiSTA, Varese, Italy 67.Univ Alaska, Inst Arctic Biol, Fairbanks, AK 99775 USA 68.Univ Wurzburg, Dept Anim Ecol & Trop Biol, Wurzburg, Germany 69.Univ Manchester, Sch Earth & Environm Sci, Manchester, Lancs, England 70.Univ Nacl Cordoba, CONICET, Inst Multidisciplinario Biol Vegetal IMBIV, Cordoba, Argentina 71.Univ Nacl Cordoba, FCEFyN, Cordoba, Argentina 72.Harvard Univ, Dept Organism & Evolutionary Biol, Cambridge, MA 02138 USA 73.Stanford Univ, Dept Earth Syst Sci, Stanford, CA 94305 USA 74.Estonian Univ Life Sci, Inst Agr & Environm Sci, Tartu, Estonia 75.CREAF, Cerdanyola Del Valles, Spain 76.Univ Minnesota, Dept Forest Resources, St Paul, MN 55108 USA 77.Western Sydney Univ, Hawkesbury Inst Environm, Penrith, NSW, Australia 78.Algoma Univ, Dept Biol, Sault Ste Marie, ON, Canada 79.Komarov Bot Inst, St Petersburg, Russia
Recommended Citation:
Thomas, H. J. D.,Myers-Smith, I. H.,Bjorkman, A. D.,et al. Traditional plant functional groups explain variation in economic but not size-related traits across the tundra biome[J]. GLOBAL ECOLOGY AND BIOGEOGRAPHY,2019-01-01,28(2):78-95